March 4, 2026
A Different America in a Different World
Anne-Marie Slaughter
International Lawyer, foreign policy analyst, political scientist and public commentator
A Different America in a Different World
Anne-Marie Slaughter
International Lawyer, foreign policy analyst, political scientist and public commentator
Ann-Marie Slaughter and George Bustin, introducer
Minutes of the 21st Meeting of the 84th Year
President George Bustin opened the meeting. Connie Hassett and Barry Breen each had a guest. Ralph Widner read the minutes from the last meeting.
George Bustin introduced the speaker, Anne-Marie Slaughter, CEO of the think tank The New America Foundation. From 2002-2009 she served as Dean of the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. She then served as the first woman director of policy planning at the U.S. State Department. Her B.A. is from Princeton University in 1980, her JD from Harvard Law School.
The format for the program was a series of questions asked by George Bustin and responses from Ms. Slaughter.
The first question posed by Mr. Bustin was on the subject of the war in Iran. How did Ms. Slaughter see the scenario playing out? Is this the nail in the coffin for the War Powers Act?
Ms. Slaughter responded that she did not think the war would be long. Her reasoning was that Iran is at its weakest point since 1979. Netanyahu took the gamble that Israel could be made as strong as ever. In the U.S. there is real opposition to the war and recognition that the opposition of autocracy is not democracy but chaos. MAGA supporters do not support war, especially in the Middle East. There is lots of pressure from the other countries in the Middle East. We could end up with a revolutionary government in Iran that is much more willing to open up to the world. No boots on the ground. With regard to the War Powers Act, it has been being honored in the breach historically and Ms. Slaughter did not think that the current situation could lead to a re-assertion of Congressional power.
The conversation then moved to the relationship between the E.U. and the U.S. There is a good deal of strain in that relationship right now, and it is unclear whether NATO can survive. Look at Munich, the gathering of NATO Defense Ministers. Marco Rubio addressed them with a speech celebrating the relationship between the U.S. and Europe. He got a standing ovation. But Europe and the U.S. have both evolved. They were united in part because of they both had Christian nationalist populations. There is no white European majority any longer, and the U.S. is now a country that reflects the whole world. The .U.S. wants to work with their allies in Europe, but it looks south as well as to Europe. At the same time, the Europeans recognize the need to strengthen their own defenses.
On the topic of Ukraine and Russia: U.S. support has declined significantly. Sales of armaments to Europe have increased. For whom is the clock ticking fastest? Can the Europeans provide enough support for Ukraine to hold on? The Ukrainian ingenuity in the field is staggering. They are unbelievably scrappy. They are like England during the blitz. They are not going to give up. Europe has done more and they know they have to do it and to be responsible for their own defense as well. Russia is being steadily weakened. There is a stalemate until there is change in Russia.
In this administration, there is no one foreign policy strategy. Rubio believes that the U.S. is the leader of the free world and that we should be bold, unexpected, and disruptive. There are disputes over foreign strategy in this administration. The Venezuela and Cuba issues are key in Miami and Texas. The idea is to make Latin-America open for business. The president is right to focus on drugs.
Another discussion concerned the U.S. federal courts and whether constitutional guardrails are being observed. Civil society must stand up against frivolous actions, and the lower courts have pushed back against constitutional violations and overreach. The Justice Department is going against this administration's enemies, and the administration is taking over the media. We owe it to ourselves to face the issues head on and follow the lead of Minneapolis, which fought back at a grass roots level. The lower federal courts have been doing their job.
The Supreme Court, however, has acted capriciously. Justice Roberts seems to be losing patience. Journalist Linda Greenhouse says that the Court's recent tariff decision was a significant opinion. It gave a very clear signal about where the majority is. It was a turning point for the court by imposing some limits on executive power. Roberts and Barrett believe in the courts and the rule of law. Most of the Court's earlier big decisions were procedural or against the administrative state. Greenhouse's prediction is that birthright citizenship will be a key issue for the Court. She believes the Court will issue a 5-4 decision upholding birthright citizenship. Another major issue is Congressional power of the purse. Gorsuch's position is that Congress' power in this regard is clear and it must be permitted to do its job.
The final question was whether Ms. Slaughter thought the courts are equipped to deal with our electoral system if emergency regulations are put into effect. Her opinion was that the courts will block this and many states will refuse to obey. She was more worried about replacement of election officials. The problem is there is no one common source of news, and there are competing views of whether elections are being rigged.
George Bustin introduced the speaker, Anne-Marie Slaughter, CEO of the think tank The New America Foundation. From 2002-2009 she served as Dean of the School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University. She then served as the first woman director of policy planning at the U.S. State Department. Her B.A. is from Princeton University in 1980, her JD from Harvard Law School.
The format for the program was a series of questions asked by George Bustin and responses from Ms. Slaughter.
The first question posed by Mr. Bustin was on the subject of the war in Iran. How did Ms. Slaughter see the scenario playing out? Is this the nail in the coffin for the War Powers Act?
Ms. Slaughter responded that she did not think the war would be long. Her reasoning was that Iran is at its weakest point since 1979. Netanyahu took the gamble that Israel could be made as strong as ever. In the U.S. there is real opposition to the war and recognition that the opposition of autocracy is not democracy but chaos. MAGA supporters do not support war, especially in the Middle East. There is lots of pressure from the other countries in the Middle East. We could end up with a revolutionary government in Iran that is much more willing to open up to the world. No boots on the ground. With regard to the War Powers Act, it has been being honored in the breach historically and Ms. Slaughter did not think that the current situation could lead to a re-assertion of Congressional power.
The conversation then moved to the relationship between the E.U. and the U.S. There is a good deal of strain in that relationship right now, and it is unclear whether NATO can survive. Look at Munich, the gathering of NATO Defense Ministers. Marco Rubio addressed them with a speech celebrating the relationship between the U.S. and Europe. He got a standing ovation. But Europe and the U.S. have both evolved. They were united in part because of they both had Christian nationalist populations. There is no white European majority any longer, and the U.S. is now a country that reflects the whole world. The .U.S. wants to work with their allies in Europe, but it looks south as well as to Europe. At the same time, the Europeans recognize the need to strengthen their own defenses.
On the topic of Ukraine and Russia: U.S. support has declined significantly. Sales of armaments to Europe have increased. For whom is the clock ticking fastest? Can the Europeans provide enough support for Ukraine to hold on? The Ukrainian ingenuity in the field is staggering. They are unbelievably scrappy. They are like England during the blitz. They are not going to give up. Europe has done more and they know they have to do it and to be responsible for their own defense as well. Russia is being steadily weakened. There is a stalemate until there is change in Russia.
In this administration, there is no one foreign policy strategy. Rubio believes that the U.S. is the leader of the free world and that we should be bold, unexpected, and disruptive. There are disputes over foreign strategy in this administration. The Venezuela and Cuba issues are key in Miami and Texas. The idea is to make Latin-America open for business. The president is right to focus on drugs.
Another discussion concerned the U.S. federal courts and whether constitutional guardrails are being observed. Civil society must stand up against frivolous actions, and the lower courts have pushed back against constitutional violations and overreach. The Justice Department is going against this administration's enemies, and the administration is taking over the media. We owe it to ourselves to face the issues head on and follow the lead of Minneapolis, which fought back at a grass roots level. The lower federal courts have been doing their job.
The Supreme Court, however, has acted capriciously. Justice Roberts seems to be losing patience. Journalist Linda Greenhouse says that the Court's recent tariff decision was a significant opinion. It gave a very clear signal about where the majority is. It was a turning point for the court by imposing some limits on executive power. Roberts and Barrett believe in the courts and the rule of law. Most of the Court's earlier big decisions were procedural or against the administrative state. Greenhouse's prediction is that birthright citizenship will be a key issue for the Court. She believes the Court will issue a 5-4 decision upholding birthright citizenship. Another major issue is Congressional power of the purse. Gorsuch's position is that Congress' power in this regard is clear and it must be permitted to do its job.
The final question was whether Ms. Slaughter thought the courts are equipped to deal with our electoral system if emergency regulations are put into effect. Her opinion was that the courts will block this and many states will refuse to obey. She was more worried about replacement of election officials. The problem is there is no one common source of news, and there are competing views of whether elections are being rigged.